As I keep reading about players dictating where they'll play in order to line up with other max contract players I had a thought for the new CBA as to how this could be addressed.
I have no idea what the new max contract will be but what if a team was allowed to spend a maximum for 1, 2, & 3 players. Something like a max for 1 player could be 16 mil, any 2 players could not exceed 28 mil, and any 3 players could not exceed 36 mil. A loophole could be given to teams to retain their own players with a 10% exception for a player that had completed 1 full season for his team and a 20% exception for a player that had completed 2 full seasons. This might help teams to retain there own players in the same manner that Bird rights do. It might also cut back on players wanting to join with another superstar if they'd have to take a 25% pay cut to join with 1 star as a free agent and a 50% cut to join with 2 stars. Just a thought.

clownskull

01-28-2011, 09:39 AM

one thing i want to see is a buyout really mean a buyout. if a team and player agree to something, it should mean that the player is not only no longer with the team, it should mean that player is no longer on the team's books either. as it currently stands a buyout is hardly close to a real buyout.

Sparhawk

01-28-2011, 10:40 AM

I think contracts longer than 3 years should be team options for anything past the 3rd year.

I'm tired of players getting over paid for not producing. It's downright terrible for the game. It shouldn't take a team 6 years to turn things around. It's been hell for Pacers fan since the brawl and Pacers won't lose that "brawl" label til they start being relevant...how long ago was that?

d_c

01-28-2011, 10:46 AM

one thing i want to see is a buyout really mean a buyout. if a team and player agree to something, it should mean that the player is not only no longer with the team, it should mean that player is no longer on the team's books either. as it currently stands a buyout is hardly close to a real buyout.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Right now when a team and player agree to a buyout (and it has to be agreed to), said player is indeed no longer with team. That player can't re-sign with the same team (for at least a year I believe) under a different contract and his bought out contract can't be traded.

The team pays the player whatever it is the agreed to buyout amount is spread out over the same number of years as the original contract. That amount still counts towards the yearly cap.

The fact that the buyout amount still counts against the cap prevents a team with deep pockets like the Knicks from just buying out a big contract like Eddy Curry and instantly clearing massive cap space.

xIndyFan

01-28-2011, 11:11 AM

a hard cap will end most of the 'all-star' teams. especially if the max contract stays at 30% of the cap. no one will be able to fit 3 max contracts without using up 30% of the cap. that just doesn't leave any money for the other 10 players. the most max contracts a team could offer is 2. that would spread out the max contract players and keep teams from doing what miami did.

beast23

01-28-2011, 11:58 AM

I go with the following as some of the needed items:

1. Hard cap for obvious reasons.

2. Franchise tag (like NFL). This will give teams the ability to retain a player and further attempt developing a new contract. At the same time, it will pay the player a very hefty salary to do so. The rules would also have to accommodate a team's ability to release players if necessary to fit the franchise tag amount under the hard cap.

3. Lower salary and less guarantee in initial contracts of players when drafted.

4. A trend towards actually lowering player salaries to make ticket prices more affordable for fans.

Roaming Gnome

01-28-2011, 12:19 PM

I go with the following as some of the needed items:

1. Hard cap for obvious reasons.

2. Franchise tag (like NFL). This will give teams the ability to retain a player and further attempt developing a new contract. At the same time, it will pay the player a very hefty salary to do so. The rules would also have to accommodate a team's ability to release players if necessary to fit the franchise tag amount under the hard cap.

3. Lower salary and less guarantee in initial contracts of players when drafted.

4. A trend towards actually lowering player salaries to make ticket prices more affordable for fans.

Too bad your #3 (sticking it to the players) wont effect ticket prices one iota. Just more profits into the owners pockets!

I do have an honest question.... Are NBA tickets really that un-affordable considering other forms of "live entertainment"? I mean other sports, live shows ie: Broadway type show, Vegas style entertainment, a concert, or maybe a night at the symphony? It just make me wonder if this is such a legit complaint anymore considering the price of a 1st run movie is more than sitting in the Balcony of Conseco Fieldhouse for an NBA game!

I know going to sporting events use to be a lot cheaper, but really... The price of entertainment, especially live entertainment in general has been keeping pace.

vapacersfan

01-28-2011, 01:13 PM

Too bad your #3 (sticking it to the players) wont effect ticket prices one iota. Just more profits into the owners pockets!

I do have an honest question.... Are NBA tickets really that un-affordable considering other forms of "live entertainment"? I mean other sports, live shows ie: Broadway type show, Vegas style entertainment, a concert, or maybe a night at the symphony? It just make me wonder if this is such a legit complaint anymore considering the price of a 1st run movie is more than sitting in the Balcony of Conseco Fieldhouse for an NBA game!

I know going to sporting events use to be a lot cheaper, but really... The price of entertainment, especially live entertainment in general has been keeping pace.

That is a great and fascinating question, and one that could go in many directions.

As a theatre arts major and someone who wants to work in film/theatre, I would say that yes, prices are out of touch with the working class home. Now you can argue that you can get a Broadway ticket on the cheap if you have time and are willing to wait, and I will concede that point.

However, sports tickets (and I am referencing the NFL more than the NBA because I do not go to many/any Wizards games) seem to be an outrageous price. Now the Redskins always have tickets on the aftermarket because we have such a large stadium, but I have heard horror stories about the Packers and other teams where it is next to impossible to get tickets.

One could argue it is easy to get tickets on eBay, stub hub, etc, but unless the team is having a horrible year you still probably will have to hell out $60-$80 a ticket, pus parking ($25) and food if you eat at the game. At the minimum if you bring a family of 4 to the game you are easily looking at a night that cost you $300 - $400…and lord forbid your child wants snacks and or a drink.

To be fair and perfectly upfront, I am a young person who just got a [new] car and am looking to get a house in the next 3 months, and also am working at an entry level position, so any cost is too much.

That said even if I had the disposable income, I really feel like entertainment prices need a reality check. Without us, the fans, there would be no show.

Sorry for the long post.
____

As far as the CBA, I would love to see them shorten contracts, but I see no problem with the current language of the buyout clause. You have to be careful, because if you mess with it too much then you have teams buying guys out just because “they can” and have the disposable income to do so.

beast23

01-28-2011, 02:39 PM

Too bad your #3 (sticking it to the players) wont effect ticket prices one iota. Just more profits into the owners pockets!

I do have an honest question.... Are NBA tickets really that un-affordable considering other forms of "live entertainment"? I mean other sports, live shows ie: Broadway type show, Vegas style entertainment, a concert, or maybe a night at the symphony? It just make me wonder if this is such a legit complaint anymore considering the price of a 1st run movie is more than sitting in the Balcony of Conseco Fieldhouse for an NBA game!

I know going to sporting events use to be a lot cheaper, but really... The price of entertainment, especially live entertainment in general has been keeping pace.Gnome... it has to start somewhere. The vast majority of teams are in the red. The owners probably feel like they are entitled to some of the profit, after having absorbed losses for so long. So, lowering salaries will not affect ticket prices one iota, as you say.... at least not initially.

I do think after a period of time, that some of the ticket prices within the venue will begin to fall. For example, at Conseco, maybe the Founders level tickets will actually increase while the Club level and upper level tickets will decrease in such a way that the average ticket price does not decrease quite so much.

For a lot of years, I had 4 season tickets. After Conseco was built, I was very fortunate that a family member was a suite owner in Club level. My wife and I continued to attend all home games. As problems grew wiht the Pacers and their players, attendance began to drop and I was able to obtain extra tickets to the suite whenever I wanted them.

Since I recalled a lot of friends and people that I worked with always saying they would go to Pacers games if they could, but the expense was to great, I began taking a handful of them to each game. We could have been playing the worst team in the league, or even get totally blown out by the best teams and it didn't matter. As the evening wound down, by the thanks I received, you would have thought I had bought them a new car. Many had never been to Conseco and absolutely loved the experience. Some were just very appreciative that they finally got to see their favorite team in person from a good seat rather than having to sit at home and watch them on TV.

So, yes. I not only think, but am actually quite certain, that decent Pacers tickets are above the means of many hard-working families, both white-collar and blue-collar. They watch their expenses, and going to Pacers games is discretionary. Do they go to a few Pacers games, or do they have money to spend for the kids on a family vacation? Or, do they buy fewer presents at Christmas? Money is tight, especially for younger, single-income families with a couple of kids.

BillS

01-28-2011, 02:55 PM

So, yes. I not only think, but am actually quite certain, that decent Pacers tickets are above the means of many hard-working families, both white-collar and blue-collar. They watch their expenses, and going to Pacers games is discretionary. Do they go to a few Pacers games, or do they have money to spend for the kids on a family vacation? Or, do they buy fewer presents at Christmas? Money is tight, especially for younger, single-income families with a couple of kids.

I thanked you but want to take some exception with this.

I can remember being glad to get tickets in the balcony to see the Pacers. If we are saying that $10 for a balcony ticket is all well and good but the seats are so bad that they aren't worth $10 even when the team is playing decently, there's a real problem with arena design and marketing. I think that problem only exists if expectations are that ANY seat at the game has to be as good or better than the TV broadcast.

As one of my favorite folksingers, David Roth, sang:

So in a somewhat strident voice I grab my friend and claim
"I can't believe they stuck us way up here to watch this game"
Immediately the woman to my right does one of these
"Just what exactly's wrong with this location?" she decrees

"We come to every game" she says "and this is where we sit
These are our seasons tickets, sir, and you are full of envy (http://www.davidrothmusic.com/lyricsthestarspangledbannr.html)

Money is tight, sure, but I think it is perception not reality that a Pacer game for a family of 4 has to be ridiculously more expensive than going out to the movies. I can remember going to games with my dad and not being bought food or souvenirs - I was still glad to go to the game. We're not talking about choosing between a vacation and a Pacer game, or Christmas presents and a Pacer game. We're talking about the difference - if you pay attention to costs - between a Pacer game and 2-3 movies, or a Pacer game and a full (not fast food) dinner out.

vapacersfan

01-28-2011, 03:00 PM

I would love to see a price break down of the stadium.

I forgot the NBA had $10 seats (well at least the Pacers do, I do not think the Wizards do)

Though to be 100% honest, I had free tix to see the Wizards a few years back in the 400 level, problem is I have a HUGE fear of heights. Anything above the first level and my knees get shaky and palms get sweaty

beast23

01-28-2011, 03:04 PM

...Money is tight, sure, but I think it is perception not reality that a Pacer game for a family of 4 has to be ridiculously more expensive than going out to the movies. I can remember going to games with my dad and not being bought food or souvenirs - I was still glad to go to the game. We're not talking about choosing between a vacation and a Pacer game, or Christmas presents and a Pacer game. We're talking about the difference - if you pay attention to costs - between a Pacer game and 2-3 movies, or a Pacer game and a full (not fast food) dinner out.

At one time or another, I've bypassed sitting in the stands and have attended games sitting in a lot of different areas of the fieldhouse. Among my favorite seats was the first row in the balcony.

But, not to be snobbish, there are a lot of folks that I know that simply will not attend a sporting event unless they have what they believe to be "adequate" or "good" tickets. And these are not necessarily people of means.

I would agree with anyone who would say that there is really not a horrible seat anywhere in the fieldhouse. But that is something that is sometimes difficult to convey to someone who has never been to Conseco and sat in the balcony. They want what they think are decent seats, but do not want to pay an arm and a leg to get them.

BillS

01-28-2011, 03:08 PM

I would love to see a price break down of the stadium.

I forgot the NBA had $10 seats (well at least the Pacers do, I do not think the Wizards do)

Though to be 100% honest, I had free tix to see the Wizards a few years back in the 400 level, problem is I have a HUGE fear of heights. Anything above the first level and my knees get shaky and palms get sweaty

Looks like cheapest are $13, not $10. (http://www.seats3d.com/nba/indiana_pacers/)

I have a fear of heights and sat in the nosebleeds for the opening night in 1999. The rake is not as steep as a lot of venues, so I didn't have much of a problem with it.

RWB

01-28-2011, 03:26 PM

I believe we've had this conversation before but someone had mentioned a Pacers regular season game is not an event. Playoffs sure, but Wednesday night in January sounds more like a hassle than a treat. Simple fact is people are willing to pay for the once in a while show.

Hicks

01-28-2011, 04:02 PM

I believe we've had this conversation before but someone had mentioned a Pacers regular season game is not an event. Playoffs sure, but Wednesday night in January sounds more like a hassle than a treat. Simple fact is people are willing to pay for the once in a while show.

True. There are too many NBA games. I may pay for a movie I want to see, but I'm not going to go 41 times. Plus, the movie is exactly the same every time (aside from outside things like distractions in the crowd or possible equipment failure) I go see it, whereas a live event like this can be greatly disappointing on any given night. Especially when it's a mediocre or worse team.

BillS

01-28-2011, 04:32 PM

whereas a live event like this can be greatly disappointing on any given night. Especially when it's a mediocre or worse team.

Or it can be extremely exciting on a given night. Though it has been so long we don't remember them, there are good nights, even this season. :D

The instructor of a wine tasting course for salespeople I took once said that Gallo will never make a horrible wine for the same reason it will never make a great wine (he also said Gallo wine will never die because it has never lived. It was a great class. But I digress.) You have to take the risk of the lowest lows in order to have the highest highs.

It isn't a better or worse form of entertainment, just a different one.

RWB

01-28-2011, 04:59 PM

[QUOTE=BillS;1148228
The instructor of a wine tasting course for salespeople I took once said that Gallo will never make a horrible wine for the same reason it will never make a great wine (he also said Gallo wine will never die because it has never lived. It was a great class. But I digress.) You have to take the risk of the lowest lows in order to have the highest highs.
.[/QUOTE]

And sometimes a cheap $6 buck Gallo or Sutter Home Moscato tastes pretty similar to the $60 dollar Marenco Moscato d'Asti Passito :D:buddies:

beast23

01-28-2011, 07:03 PM

And sometimes a cheap $6 buck Gallo or Sutter Home Moscato tastes pretty similar to the $60 dollar Marenco Moscato d'Asti Passito :D:buddies:ugh. Or not.

Pacerized

01-28-2011, 08:10 PM

I like all of these ideas. A hard cap would also force teams to limit how many max contract players they could have. My idea is strictly aimed at limiting players trying to join with other max contract players. When I reed the Melo drama reports or read that Rubio doesn't want to play for the Twolves but wants to play for New York I hate it. I hate what Miami was able to do, it doesn't give a level playing field to teams like the Pacers. If players had to take a big hit on salary to join the team of their choice as free agents it would put a stop to this. It also takes away the big market draw benefit that teams like LA have over us. Given a limited exception to teams to keep their own players based on how many years they've played for that team would help in that it wouldn't encourage players to leave a team just because that team already had a max player on it.

I go with the following as some of the needed items:

1. Hard cap for obvious reasons.

2. Franchise tag (like NFL). This will give teams the ability to retain a player and further attempt developing a new contract. At the same time, it will pay the player a very hefty salary to do so. The rules would also have to accommodate a team's ability to release players if necessary to fit the franchise tag amount under the hard cap.

3. Lower salary and less guarantee in initial contracts of players when drafted.

4. A trend towards actually lowering player salaries to make ticket prices more affordable for fans.